Research published earlier this year has revealed this statistically significant gender difference: Men appear better at located the source of a sound. At least when that sound was one of many, a single tree in a forest of noise. [source]
While I can see how gender differences in math skills could be under the influence of social learning and culture, I’m not sure how the same could be the case for auditory skills. Of course, it would be mistaken to claim that what isn’t obviously “nurture” must the be a case of “nature.” The issue is complex.
It seems that red heads actually don’t bleed more easily than brunettes nor blondes, etc. Thanks to scientific research, surgeons can put aside that bit of folklore that may have been hindering them. As discussed in, Doctors Don’t Need to Fear Red Heads -
The authors, led by surgeon Jonathan Barry from Morriston Hospital in Swansea, say that “red haired patients are traditionally regarded with a degree of trepidation by surgeons and anaesthetists alike due to a reputation for excessive bleeding, reduced pain threshold and a propensity to develop hernias.”
What does this have to do with homeopathy? I suspect that there is similar reasoning behind “red heads bleed more” and the homeopathic premise that “like-cures-like” (law of similars). Could we call it folkloric reasoning?
Another bit of folklore: Red heads have more “fiery” temperaments. But do they? I haven’t seen any research on the matter, by I highly doubt it. What I don’t doubt is that human beings like to draw connections between variables. Red is startling color, why wouldn’t we find a connection between it and startling behavior? Makes sense, in a very rudimentary sense. And if we aren’t careful with our observations, we just might convince ourselves it is true.
To some people, the homeopathic “like cures like” makes sense when lacking other, better ways, of reasoning. And because homeopaths aren’t careful with their observations, they have convinced themselves there is merit to the idea.
The moral of the story? If you fear red heads you should grind up a red crayon in your blender, dilute the mix to 20c, and bingo! you’ve got a treatment for it.
Make sense?
For more on why homeopathy is bunk, see 1023.org (Homeopathy: There’s Nothing in It)
Did you hear the news? Hallucinogens are good. It’s true, science has proved it.
White lies commonly told — unintentionally — in the field of science involve the simple exaggeration of findings. It’s far too easy to do. How? Through the use vague and/or general terms. Make it seem as if your finding applies to more than what you confirmed through research.
A hypothetical illustration of this would be making the claim that Hallucinogens are good. And there is some science behind it.
Of course, Hallucinogens are good is a very general statement. One that, if used, grossly distorts the finding. When encountering that statement the very first question in response might be, Which hallucinogens? And right away, the “s” would have to be dropped. Oh, just psilocybin was tested, one that naturally occurs in a few species of mushroom.
Second question, and it’s a biggie, might be, Good for what?
Third question, How good?
Etc.
In the news release about the actual research I did not find any misleading exaggeration. At least not of the direct variety. I mainly found an opportunity to illustration a point.
In the very title to the ScienceDaily post, Hallucinogen Can Safely Ease Anxiety in Advanced-Stage Cancer Patients, Study Suggests, we find the answer to the second question.
As an aside, What welcome news this could be! The products of science executed with cold precision can bring heart-warming benefits.
The lead of the research team said, “We are working with a patient population that often does not respond well to conventional treatments.” Which underscores the importance of the work as well as provides justification for experimenting with a hallucinogen as a treatment.
So the psilocybin was found to be “good” for alleviating anxiety in advanced stage cancer patients experiencing anxiety. Unfortunately, an answer to the third question could not be found in the write-up. I’m sure it’s in the published article in Archives of General Psychiatry. But I really think that question should be answered up front — whenever relevant. Why? Because by getting specific the hazard of exaggeration is greatly diminished. Yet many scientists and editors don’t like to divulge the answer to the “how big” question, and/or provide other specifics. It can make their news seem less than BIG. Unfortunately, big sells. Big also helps fund further research.
The better scientists know how easy it is to blow findings out of proportion. Perhaps in part because they are aware they could potentially suffer from blowback, so to speak, many will intentionally caution their audience. As did the lead investigator with this statement -
“This study shows psilocybin can be administered safely, and that further investigation of hallucinogens should be pursued to determine their potential benefits.”
Further investigation needed; potential benefits — good. The caution is appropriate.
As a final tangent into politics, consider these two paragraphs:
Researchers conducted extensive investigations of psychedelic drugs in the 1950s and 1960s and found promising improvements in mood and anxiety, as well as a diminished need for narcotic pain medication among advanced-stage cancer patients. The research was abandoned in the early 1970s in the wake of widespread recreational usage that led to stiff federal laws regulating hallucinogens.
“Political and cultural pressures forced an end to these studies in the 1970s,” said Dr. Grob. “We were able to revive this research under strict federal supervision and demonstrate that this is a field of study with great promise for alleviating anxiety and other psychiatric symptoms.” [emphases added]
Conservative policies can limit science — and obstruct the development of treatments. I’m not sure how that could fall under the quasi-euphamistic “compassionate conservative” label. Scientific progress offers the most effective way to help alleviate the sufferings of humankind, present and future. Staying out of the way of science, in most but certainly not all cases, is the ethical thing to do.
Many a deep thinker has stressed the importance of knowing thyself. While the ancient means of knowing consisted primarily of self-examination and introspection, today we have other means. In many cases better means. Introspection is both fallible and severely limited.
For one we turn to psychology. The formal study of the thought processes and feelings and behaviors of humans. Of others like us. By knowing others we can better know ourselves.
While I often give the field of psychology a lot of deserved grief — the field is rife with sloppy science, exaggerated finds, and reckless theorizing — I must today give it due kudos. While it has its failings, the study of human psychology has made progress. And shows great promise.
In the spirit of applause and anticipation of better things to come, I offer these three, diverse, “quick hit” findings. Each fascinating in its own right.
1. Social fear may be at the root of stereotypes
Children with the genetic condition known as Williams syndrome have unusually friendly natures because they lack the sense of fear that the rest of us feel in many social situations. Now, a study reported in the April 13th issue of Current Biology, a Cell Press publication, suggests that children with Williams Syndrome are missing something else the rest of us have from a very tender age: the proclivity to stereotype others based on their race. [source; all bolds mine]
2. Emotions linger despite a lack of conscious memory
A new University of Iowa study offers some good news for caregivers and loved ones of individuals with Alzheimer’s disease. Patients might forget a joke or a meaningful conversation — but even so, the warm feelings associated with the experience can stick around and boost their mood. [source]
3. The feelings and motivations of empathy and violence may be biologically “joined at the hip”
[T]he prefrontal and temporal cortex, the amygdala and other features of the limbic system (such as insulin and the cingulated cortex) play “a fundamental role in all situations in which empathy appears”.
Moya Albiol says these parts of the brain overlap “in a surprising way” with those that regulate aggression and violence. As a result, the scientific team argues that the cerebral circuits – for both empathy and violence – could be “partially similar”.
“We all know that encouraging empathy has an inhibiting effect on violence, but this may not only be a social question but also a biological one – stimulation of these neuronal circuits in one direction reduces their activity in the other”, the researcher adds. [source]
Sexism can be a subtle thing. It can even manifest itself in how we introduce a couple. Do we say the male’s name first, or the female’s?
And why didn’t I just write, Do we say the female’s name first, or the male’s? While I am not sexist in any conscious way I know about, and even consider myself a feminist of sorts (I believe in affirmative action for women, where needed), perhaps the spoken and written conventions (habits) I repeat reflect the sexism of another time. Do they perpetuate it?
I got to thinking about all of this after reading a recent science article, Men, Not Ladies, First: We’re Still Sexist in Writing.
First question: Why the use of “ladies” in the title and not the true equivalent of men, “women”? An intentional case in point?
As for the nutmeat of the research, in consisted of this:
Firstly, the team investigated the modern written context of the internet. Using 10 popular British boys and girls names and 10 popular American boys and girls names, the team searched the internet using each of the possible male-female name pairs as search terms, for both the male name first — i.e. ‘David and Sarah’, and then female name first — ‘Sarah and David’.
The results of this search found that for the British name pairs, the male-first name pairings accounted for 79 per cent of the mentions, and female-first pairs only 21 per cent. For the American names this was 70 per cent of the mentions were male-first and 30 per cent for female-first. [bold mine]
Second question: I wonder if this “sexist” name ordering was at least originally pragmatic. The more important person was put first. Hold on, hear me out. By more important I don’t mean ultimate/inherent value, I mean social importance. By addressing the person first who more likely made the decisions and/or owned the property, well, you were drawing attention to the priority of who it would be most advantageous to speak to (“deal with”).
I can certainly see how today this may be reversed. Imagine that you visit a female friend, Barbara, in her house. She has a child and a boyfriend, John. In this case, putting John’s name first just wouldn’t make sense. For in terms of social and pragmatic concerns, Barbara has priority.
And if the two are completely equal (in your eyes)? Maybe you go with a social convention. John and Barbara. Or maybe you say Barbara and John, sending a message: those days are gone.
Recent Comments